Md. Wasim vs State Of West Bengal And Another

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

The revisionist is aggrieved by order dated 22nd April, 2019 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Bench-I at Bichar Bhawan in NDPS Case No. 35 of 2018 under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

By the impugned order the time for conducting and completing investigation was extended by the court below on a formal application being made by the Investigating Officer and argued extensively by the Public Prosecutor.

The revisionist would argue before this Court that in terms of the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602 as followed in the case of Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, NCB reported in (2009) 17 SCC 631, an application for extension of time for completing investigation, in terms of Section 36(A)(IV) and particularly its proviso, ought to be made by the Public Prosecutor.

The reasoning of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that an application by Investigating Officer may at the most be of assistance but it would be mandatory for the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind to the Investigating Officer's Report particularly as regards progress of such investigation before seeking extension of time. The said proviso has been interpreted to be protection afforded to an accused from indefinite detention in respect of investigations being carried out casually and indefinitely by the Investigating Officers. It is also intended to be wake up call to the Investigating Agency to expedite investigation.

In the instant case the application for extension has been made by the Investigating Officer albeit filed through the Special Public Prosecutor and hence the same is in violation of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in the Kedia Case (Supra) and the Hitendra Bishnu Thakur (Supra).

It appears that the charge sheet has been filed on 15th May, 2019. The omission by the NCB if at all, in the instant case therefore must be deemed to be minor in nature.

The Special Public Prosecutor in this case has personally argued the matter substantially in support of the findings of the Investigating Officer and the filing of the application for extension of time can at the best be a mere minor irregularity but not a major deficiency that would be fatal to the proceedings themselves.

While there is a minor deviation from the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the larger object and purpose of the NDPS Act, 1985 this Court is of the view that no interference is called for in the instant revisional application into the proceedings initiated against the revisionist. This Court is equally conscious of the fact that the application for interference with the order of the Special Court would have the effect of not only benefiting the petitioner but also the other absconding accused.

In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no cause for interference with the order passed by the Special Court and the revisional application must fail and is hereby dismissed.

It is ordered that the other accused be apprehended at the earliest by the Prosecution after availing remedies available under the NDPS Act and the Cr. P. C.

It is ordered that the trial be completed within a period of six months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

It is submitted that copies of the documents have already been supplied to the accused and the next date in the Court below is stated to be today.

Let the matter be taken up for framing of charge on or before expiry by the ten days from date.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.